Some are arguing we should never use the name “Yahweh” or “Jehovah” for God, even when the Tetragrammaton was used in the Hebrew OT.
My response:
What’s the concern here? I don’t see why not knowing the exact pronunciation for the Tetragrammaton matters. We don’t know how lots of ancient words were pronounced. In some contexts, it is helpful to distinguish the Tetragrammaton from other names for the Lord. The use of all capital letters for “LORD” does this visually in English translation, but, again, sometimes it helpful to do this audibly as well in some way. Yahweh or Jehovah does audibly what LORD does visually. It’s about precision.
If the concern is with Judiazing, I think it’s misplaced. Are you going to remove “Hallelujah” from the NT? What’s next? Removing “Amen”? Will you drop all the classic hymns that use “Hallelujah” and “Jehovah” – or try to revise the lyrics?
—
There are several places where Jesus speaks in Aramaic in the NT, eg, Mark 5:41, 7:34, 15:34, Matt 5:22, etc. “Abba” is another Aramaic term that made it into the NT. “Mammon,” “Hosanna,” “Maranatha” – all further examples of Hebrew or Aramaic in the NT.
This makes it unlikely that Jesus was relying on the LXX. While the apostles certainly appear to use the LXX at times, they do not use it exclusively.
—
How should we view the LXX?
I think it’s great God has preserved the LXX and the Masoretic text (and the Dead Sea scrolls), as cross referencing these versions bolsters our confidence in the accuracy of the text (much like having a variety of NT manuscript traditions allows us to confirm the text).
Why do the Stone Choir guys favor the LXX? My guess is that preferring the LXX is part of SC’s polemic against the Jews, but I can’t see how it really helps since the LXX was also translated by Jews.
Besides, there’s still Hebrew “tainting” the NT, eg, the word “Hallelujah” and “Amen.”
There’s no question the apostles usually quote from the LXX (but there are a few exceptions).
Jesus did not speak Greek, he likely spoke Hebrew/Aramaic, so what Bible did he read from in, eg, Luke 4? Probably not LXX, probably a Hebrew or Aramaic text since that’s what was spoken in Judea at the time.
I think the LXX has the same limitations as any other translation – it’s certainly not “inspired” or a replacement for the autographa
Surely the people of God had the inspired Scripture in Hebrew long before the LXX was done for the diaspora in the inter-testamental period.
The Dead Sea scrolls seem to confirm the Masoretic text is pretty accurate, faithful to older textual traditions
Frankly, the LXX and Masoretic do not differ enough to make a huge issue out of this.
There are places where apostles went with LXX (such as quoting Psalm 40 in Hebrews) but other places where the Masoretic is preferred and invoked (a few LXX readings are definitely odd). For example, consider Genesis 3:15 in the LXX vs. the Masoretic text; compare the LXX of Hosea 11:1 to Matthew 2:15;
—
Consider this passage:
Revelation 19:1-5
[1] After this I heard what seemed to be the loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, crying out,
“Hallelujah!
Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,
[2] for his judgments are true and just;
for he has judged the great prostitute
who corrupted the earth with her immorality,
and has avenged on her the blood of his servants.”
[3] Once more they cried out,
“Hallelujah!
The smoke from her goes up forever and ever.”
[4] And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who was seated on the throne, saying, “Amen. Hallelujah!” [5] And from the throne came a voice saying,
“Praise our God,
all you his servants,
you who fear him,
small and great.”
“Amen” is a Hebrew term brought over into the Greek NT.
“Hallelujah” is another Hebrew term used in the NT. It means “praise Yah” or “praise the Lord.” If Yah or Jah (obviously related to Yahweh and Jehovah), cannot used, then how do you propose translating this text from Revelation 19? Why did John use “jah” language for God in the NT?
Also, according to Hymnary, over 3200 hymns (many of them classics and sung often in our circles) use the name “Jehovah.” It seems to me it’d be a pretty radical step to reject them all or change them all. Here’s a link: hymnary.org/search?qu=all%…
—
This is a complicated issue but the gist of it is this:
When good translators translate the Greek NT into English, they preserve non-Greek Aramaic/Hebrew terms in the text so that the English reader will have the same experience as the original reader, namely, encountering a word in a different language from the rest of the text. Someone reading, say, Matthew 5:22 in the original Greek would encounter a transliterated Aramaic/Hebrew term, “raca.” The KJV/NKJV usually provides a footnote that gives an English translation of the Aramaic term. It’s typically a better NT translation practice to leave the term transliterated *but untranslated* since it’s not a Greek word in an otherwise Greek text.
Once you really look into this issue, it’s pretty surprising just how many times the NT writers use Aramaic/Hebrew even as they write in Greek. It shows that the writers of the NT are still thinking in terms of OT categories; they aren’t inventing a new religion but showing how the storyline of the old covenant is coming to fulfillment. It’s been said “The NT authors think in Hebrew even as they write in Greek” — and I think that’s true, provided we understand Hewbrew is not just a language here, but a worldview. Here’s a link with a list of Hebrew and Aramaic terms in the NT: bibtheo.com/2020/02/04/ara…
As for “Yaweh,” we are under no obligation to use it. The NT writers quote OT passages that used the Tetragrammaton and they translate it as “Kurios,” which then comes over into English as “Lord.” So anyone thinks we *must* use “Yaweh” (or some variation) is presuming to know better than the apostles. Consider Psalm 110:1. In the Hebrew text, Yaweh speaks to Adonai. But when Matthew 22:34 quotes this text, Kurios speaks to Kurios – in English, the Lord speaks to the Lord. The NKJV gives the first “Lord” in all caps so we will know it was Yahweh in the OT text, but the text of Matthew makes no such distinction. The same thing happens when Peter quotes from Psalm 110 in his sermon in Acts 2 – Kurios speaks to Kurios, without the distinction of names that existed in the Hebrew text.
I know some churches in our circles will use “Yahweh” when publicly reading from an OT text where the Tetragrammaton appears. I think that’s entirely unnecessary and probably unhelpful. It’s usually done in the name of biblicism — but ironically it’s not what the apostles did when writing the NT part of the Bible. It’s a practice that actually ends up obscuring rather than illuminating links between the OT and NT, eg, if we publicly read “LORD” as “YHWH” in Joel 2:32, then the connection with Romans 10:13 can be lost. Why would we do that?
My conclusion from this is that we have no obligation to use some form of “Yahweh” when the OT uses the Tetragrammaton. And we should never use it when reading from the NT (except when reading Revelation 19, where it’s part of the original text in shortened form). It was not apostolic practice. We do not need to try to be wiser (or weirder) than the apostles.
That being said, it is not wrong to use some variation of “Yahweh” when it can bring some kind of clarity or make a teaching point. Each name for God in Scripture reveals some unique facet of who he is, including Yahweh. This name does, after all, show up as a “new” name for God in Exodus 3 and 6, in a context that makes it covenantally significant. I can’t imagine preaching Exodus 3 or 6 without going into what “Yahweh” means — though obviously “I Am,” “I am who I am,” or even perhaps “I will be who I will be” are all good translations (and the LXX translated it as “I am” — which Jesus is picking up on his “I am ” statements in John’s gospel). Further, the “Hallelu-Jah” in Revelation 19 shows us an abbreviated Tetragrammaton was used in some contexts in Greek speaking churches at least occasionally.
But if I was writing a hymn, I probably would not use “Yahweh” or “Jehovah.” These aren’t magic names. They can be translated into “I am.” But because the Hebrews had many names for God, it can be useful to distinguish them. I’m ok with singing hymns that use “Jehovah,” but it’s not necessary. “Lord” works just fine. And if we chant Psalms that originally had the Tetragrammaton today (like Psalm 110), it can be translated and sung as “LORD” without any loss – indeed, this is normally preferable because it’s apostolic and preserves links between OT and NT. We are doing what the apostles would have done when they sang psalms.
I think we should avoid Judaizing *and* de-Judaizing, which we will do if we follow apostolic practice.
My 2 cents.
TPC Pastor's Page 